Brumby
Major
Yes. Simple words that come to mind include contextual and or relevance.
South China Sea Strategies for other nations (Not China)
- Thread starter PanAsian
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
Is that a legal opinion, or just your own personal one?
Brumby
Major
Personal derived from my understanding of UNCLOS provisions, the nature of the opt out, the Philippines legal submission and layered by professional legal commentaries (not news article) from both sides of the divide. Bottom line is I actually spent time and research on the subject.
Blackstone
Brigadier
OK, thanks. Be nice to have a legal opinion from someone who works in the specific field. I say that because there are instances in US laws where common sense and reasonable person standards don't apply. A primary example is an argument in court by President Clinton based on meaning of the word "is."
Brumby
Major
The legal issues that the tribunal initially had accepted for determination are pretty clear out and well within provisions of UNCLOS and specifically tasked by the provisions to discharge. There are other aspects of the Philippines submission that are still subject to a decision by the tribunal on whether it is qualified to undertake. If I am not mistaken, the recently concluded close door arguments before the tribunal was part of this outstanding issue with a decision known sometime in 2016.
Regardless of the differing legal opinion over it, within the legal framework and the structure of a rule based order, the tribunal's opinion is final. China can if it choose to ignore the findings but that is not a legal issue but geopolitics.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Your personal opinion is noted. The tribunal's opinion is hardly final, as future courts can overturn it, but we agree China could ignore it for national interests and geopolitical reasons.
Brumby
Major
I stand corrected but there are no appeal mechanism within UNCLOS beyond the tribunal and so that is final. Practical solutions around it are (i) ignoring or withdrawing from UNCLOS or (ii) convening a plenary session of changing the provisions within UNCLOS to effectively nullify the determination of the tribunal.
Zetageist
Junior Member
FULL TEXT: PH's closing remarks at The Hague:
While Taiwan controlled Itu Aba Island, lied outside of Philippines' 200 nm EEZ, is not one of 10 features to be decided by the tribunal, but because of its potential overlapping EEZ entitlements could cover some of nearby China (PRC) controlled reefs (Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, Hughes Reef, McKennan Reef, Johnson South Reef, and even Fiery Cross Reef), Philippines' legal team intends to remove this wild card during this arbitration ruling and to maximize Philippines' 200 nm EEZ entitlements.
While Taiwan controlled Itu Aba Island, lied outside of Philippines' 200 nm EEZ, is not one of 10 features to be decided by the tribunal, but because of its potential overlapping EEZ entitlements could cover some of nearby China (PRC) controlled reefs (Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, Hughes Reef, McKennan Reef, Johnson South Reef, and even Fiery Cross Reef), Philippines' legal team intends to remove this wild card during this arbitration ruling and to maximize Philippines' 200 nm EEZ entitlements.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
Does anyone know what the current international "norm" is on one nation's artificial island lying within the (uncontested) 200mi EEZ of another nation?
Zool
Junior Member
Depends on the nature of the artificial island and how it began life:
1) As a : A landmass above water only at low tide. Outside an existing territorial sea it is not entitled to a separate maritime zone.
2) As a : A landmass permanently above water but unable to sustain human habitation or economic life on its own. It is entitled to a territorial sea and contiguous zone, but not an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental shelf rights.
3) As a : A landmass permanently above water that can sustain human habitation or economic life on its own. It is entitled to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, and continental shelf rights.
If the artificial island falls into categories 1 or 2 then it would have no resource rights within the others EEZ. It would still have some limited boundaries however.
Under category 3 the artificial island would generate it's own EEZ and so your premise of it being within another's uncontested EEZ is unlikely, because there would probably be some form of dispute. That or a negotiated limit between the two territories.